The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-06-04

apple brandy on their own farms and
mountain homes were hunted down,
shot, arrested aud put In prison by the
revenue officers.
These thugs are not done under a
bushcl, and Mr.. Mills in his seat in the
halls OF congress read in his morning
paper OF these vigorous and bloody
proceedings, and if the government
has no right to say to the farmer, "You
shall not make brandy until you have
my permission, my license" why did
he not enter ringing protest against
these outrages and Entertainments
lie knew these people were being
hunted down and. IN some instances,
killed; and if he believed then what
he processes to believe now about
their "inalienable rights" why didn't
he make "Romc how'll"
Many members of congress during
the years 1888 and 1884 were much
disposed 10 grant some relief TO the
fruit growers, aud several bills were
introduced in congress TO reduce or
repeal the tax on fruit brandies.
On June 81, 1884, Mr.. Tucker, OF
Virginia, moved 10 take up the bill to
lepeal the tax on fruit brandies, which
was disagreed 20 by the following vote:
Yeas 50, nays 119, Mr.. Mills voting
nav.
On July 8, 1884, Mr.. Tucker renew
ed his motion which was disagreed TO
by the following vote. Yeas so, nays
1872. Mr.. Mills voting nay; and they
let another opportunity pass when
speech for "personal liberty" might
have resulted in relief 10 the small dis
filler and farmer. He did not attack
the monopoly of distilliug, which was
then, as it is now, controlled by wealthy
companies and corporations. why
didn't he?
On Feb. 10, 1883, vote was taken
in Congress on hill to reduce inter.
nal revenue, etc. Sec. 3 OF the bill
reads. "Tnat hereafter the special lax
of dealer in manufactured tobacco
shall not be required from any farmer,
plsnter or lumberman, who furnishes
such tobacco only as ralions or sup
plies to his laborers or employees, i'll
the same manner rs other supplies are
furnished by him to them. provided
that the aggregate Of the supplies OF
tobacco by him so furnished shall not
exceed 100 pounds in any one special
tax year. ETC." The vote stood yeas
1872, nays 81. Mr.. Mills voting nay.
Here was another opportunity for
Mr.. Mills to eXpound the doctrine OF
personal liberty, but he not only did
not speak in favor Of it but voted
against his Corsicana view of the ques-
ton. Mills in Washington
see personal liberty" in different
light from Mills on the stump in
Texas. On April 7, 1884, Mr.. Thomp-
son, Of Kentucky, moved to suspend
the rules and pass this resolution
Resolved, That it is unwise and in
expedient for the present congress to
abolish or reduce the tax on spirits
distilled from grain.
Yeas, 179; nays, SO. Mills-,voted yea.
lie cannot say that the United
States treasury would have been de-
pleted If these taxes had been abol-
ished, for il is too well-known that tie
revenue is largely more every year
than the government requires.
Here were favorable OPPORTUNITIES
for Mr. Mills to play the role in Wash
ington of the great commoner" and
stand up for the rights of the CON-
mon people, but he preferred to leave
monopolies undisturbed, and now
when the people OF Texas would
throw off the degrading liquor traffic
which these monopolists would iasten
on us forever, Mr.. Mills is making |
" the greatest effort of his life" to
persuade the people that if they vote
whisky out of the STATE they sacrifice |
their manhood. WHITE